I'm not agreeing that it does or does not, but so what? Protestants toss out the Apocrypha, Catholics don't. It goes back to my original statement on the matter--do you really think humans got it all written down right?

I'm not agreeing that it does or does not, but so what? Protestants toss out the Apocrypha, Catholics don't. It goes back to my original statement on the matter--do you really think humans got it all written down right?

Jews tossed it out first then the Catholics tossed it out then put it back then the protestants tossed it ... put it back then tossed it again all tossed it for the same or simalr reasons... Any roads up… the Bible's message to mankind of hope, peace, and salvation, through nothing more than faith remains constant and unwavering despite the screeching of the non-believers … It has been so for thousands of years and I am certain it will be so till the END.

Crossan is nothing more than another blasphemous, gnostic, and while he has made claims, that those who are predisposed to grasp at straws to disporve the Bible, inorder to sooth their own conscinces, dispreatly grasp at, he brings nothing new to history and he has proven nothing, while deyning much. And yet the Bibles message to mankind of hope, peace, and salvation, through nothing more than faith remains constant and unwavering despite the screeching of the non believers, …http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-27/livi ... =PM:LIVING

Is it not possible for each and every one of us to act peacefully without belief? It seems we are so heavily conditioned, in virtually all parts of the world, to feel the need to subscribe to this religion or that religion, this belief or that belief, and then we quarrel about which belief is the best one. It all seems so collosally immature. What is the point of having any belief at all? If I put a pin into your skin, you will feel pain and I know this because if you did the same to me, I would feel pain. We are all essentailly the same, hence, "Treat thy neighbor as thyself". There's really nothing esoteric about that is there? Why believe anything or have faith in Jesus or Buddha or anyone else, when one can simply investigate for oneself? Seems Jesus, Buddha and many others, both historic and contempory, did and are doing just that ..... they investigated. What's stopping any of us from doing the same?

Christ wasn't Christian and Buddha wasn't Buddhist. These people didn't create religion, they lived it. It was people who manufactured religion, probably because they felt and still feel a need for psychologicl security and the sense of belonging creates a sort of false security. Belonging to a nation or to a religious group or to the Boy Scouts, etc. creates a sense of security which can never really be found.

"There is no place for man to rest his head".

The Bible, Koran, etc .....are historical works made up, most likely, of both fact and fiction. They are interesting for what they are.

Crossan is nothing more than another blasphemous, gnostic, and while he has made claims, that those who are predisposed to grasp at straws to disporve the Bible, inorder to sooth their own conscinces, dispreatly grasp at, he brings nothing new to history and he has proven nothing, while deyning much. And yet the Bibles message to mankind of hope, peace, and salvation, through nothing more than faith remains constant and unwavering despite the screeching of the non believers, …http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-27/livi ... =PM:LIVING

Is it not possible for each and every one of us to act peacefully without belief? ..."There is no place for man to rest his head".

The Bible, Koran, etc .....are historical works made up, most likely, of both fact and fiction. They are interesting for what they are.

And yet the Bible's message to mankind of hope, peace, and salvation, through nothing more than faith remains constant and unwavering despite the screeching of the non-believers … It has been so for thousands of years and I am certain it will be so till the END. Not by works but by faith

Seems Jesus, Buddha and many others, both historic and contempory, did and are doing just that ..... they investigated. What's stopping any of us from doing the same?

Probably a lack of extraordinarily new ideas or anything revolutionary with regard to belief in the afterlife.

Quote:

Christ wasn't Christian and Buddha wasn't Buddhist. These people didn't create religion, they lived it. It was people who manufactured religion, probably because they felt and still feel a need for psychologicl security and the sense of belonging creates a sort of false security. Belonging to a nation or to a religious group or to the Boy Scouts, etc. creates a sense of security which can never really be found.

There's hardly anything false about it. People do genuinely feel more secure around folks with whom they are familiar in some way, shape, or form. When one believes in something and wishes to further a cause, whether it be religion, a mission statement, or company policy, why in hell would one NOT coordinate with, socialize among, or otherwise accompany those who share a common belief unless they were some sort of rogue loner? Your failing to find comfort and security in such settings (or claim to the contrary) is no indication that others do not nor that the moral model followed is inherently flawed.

Quote:

The Bible, Koran, etc .....are historical works made up, most likely, of both fact and fiction.

Absence of evidence doesn't constitute evidence of absence. You're employing belief here. Are you suggesting that a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of X indicates that X doesn't exist, or are you claiming to have infinite knowledge?

Seems Jesus, Buddha and many others, both historic and contempory, did and are doing just that ..... they investigated. What's stopping any of us from doing the same?

Probably a lack of extraordinarily new ideas or anything revolutionary with regard to belief in the afterlife.

Quote:

Christ wasn't Christian and Buddha wasn't Buddhist. These people didn't create religion, they lived it. It was people who manufactured religion, probably because they felt and still feel a need for psychologicl security and the sense of belonging creates a sort of false security. Belonging to a nation or to a religious group or to the Boy Scouts, etc. creates a sense of security which can never really be found.

There's hardly anything false about it. People do genuinely feel more secure around folks with whom they are familiar in some way, shape, or form. When one believes in something and wishes to further a cause, whether it be religion, a mission statement, or company policy, why in hell would one NOT coordinate with, socialize among, or otherwise accompany those who share a common belief unless they were some sort of rogue loner? Your failing to find comfort and security in such settings (or claim to the contrary) is no indication that others do not nor that the moral model followed is inherently flawed.

I'm not talking about organizing and coordinating efforts to get a job done, but this has nothing to do with belief. I don't need belief to get the garden planted. Fact and belief are two very separate things. Fact does not need belief and belief has liitle use for fact. Why should belief ever enter the equation in doing work that needs to be done? I haven't spoken to morals, at least not yet. Consider that many non-believers are perfectly moral people. I don't need to read the scriptures in order to conduct my life sanely. As in the example of poking a pin into your arm and causing pain, while knowing that if you reciprocated the action i would also feel pain. This is fact so what need have i for belief?

Quote:

The Bible, Koran, etc .....are historical works made up, most likely, of both fact and fiction.

Absence of evidence doesn't constitute evidence of absence. You're employing belief here. Are you suggesting that a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of X indicates that X doesn't exist, or are you claiming to have infinite knowledge?

Historical texts are also most likely a combination of fact and fiction depending on who is telling the story. The added problem with the known sacred texts is that they are very old which adds further doubt to their accuracy. But I do enjoy the stories.

I'm not talking about organizing and coordinating efforts to get a job done, but this has nothing to do with belief.

Hence my rebuttal speaking primarily to a valid sense of security.

Quote:

I don't need belief to get the garden planted. Fact and belief are two very separate things. Fact does not need belief and belief has liitle use for fact Why should belief ever enter the equation in doing work that needs to be done?

Easy--because you don't know there is work to be done (or how it should be done) unless you believe something, probably something perfectly reasonable to believe, about the facts. Facts are very limited and specific. They're not instructions, they just are. For example, intelligent life exists in the universe. Given what you know of this fact and the science behind what likely led to it (after all, there is no law of evolution, yet), do you believe it exists somewhere other than Earth or do you subscribe to the notion that it doesn't because you're not aware of facts that support it?

Quote:

I haven't spoken to morals, at least not yet. Consider that many non-believers are perfectly moral people.

Are they? There are no facts supporting this assertion.

Quote:

I don't need to read the scriptures in order to conduct my life sanely. As in the example of poking a pin into your arm and causing pain, while knowing that if you reciprocated the action i would also feel pain. This is fact so what need have i for belief?

Alright, you've identified cause and effect, but nothing indicating that either or both is immoral. That would require belief.

Quote:

Historical texts are also most likely a combination of fact and fiction depending on who is telling the story.

That applies to any non-fictional or reference account given that they are created by mistake-prone humans. This is exactly my argument when it comes to what the Bible says. The question remains as to whether it is actually false or simply that we do not know one way or the other.

Quote:

The added problem with the known sacred texts is that they are very old which adds further doubt to their accuracy.

No, it simply detracts from our confidence in the account. You are confusing accuracy with knowledge that something is true or that it exists.

I'm not talking about organizing and coordinating efforts to get a job done, but this has nothing to do with belief.

Hence my rebuttal speaking primarily to a valid sense of security.

I don't understand. What has a sense of security, whether "valid" or "invalid" have to do with belief?

Quote:

I don't need belief to get the garden planted. Fact and belief are two very separate things. Fact does not need belief and belief has liitle use for fact Why should belief ever enter the equation in doing work that needs to be done?

Easy--because you don't know there is work to be done (or how it should be done) unless you believe something, probably something perfectly reasonable to believe, about the facts.

Quote:

I know for a fact, that if I don't eat, I will at best get hungry and at worst die of starvation. In this instance, it is fact and not belief that motivates me to get the garden planted. Through trial and error, i have discovered how best to plant the garden so that it is a fact that if I plant the seedlings too close together, they will not thrive (depending on species of course), or that if I don't water the plants, they will die. I need not believe in the God of Corn to make corn grow.

Facts are very limited and specific. They're not instructions, they just are. For example, intelligent life exists in the universe. Given what you know of this fact and the science behind what likely led to it (after all, there is no law of evolution, yet), do you believe it exists somewhere other than Earth or do you subscribe to the notion that it doesn't because you're not aware of facts that support it?

Quote:

Given the images brought back by Hubble, I would say that intelligent life probably exists someplace other than Earth, but I can't say for sure. I do not say there is intelligent life elsewhere or tehre is not life elsewhere. I have no belief one way or the other. Ido, however, say it is probable.

Quote:

I haven't spoken to morals, at least not yet. Consider that many non-believers are perfectly moral people.

Are they? There are no facts supporting this assertion.

Quote:

It's empiricl

Quote:

I don't need to read the scriptures in order to conduct my life sanely. As in the example of poking a pin into your arm and causing pain, while knowing that if you reciprocated the action i would also feel pain. This is fact so what need have i for belief?

Alright, you've identified cause and effect, but nothing indicating that either or both is immoral. That would require belief.

But the feeling of pain does not depend nor require belief.

Quote:

Historical texts are also most likely a combination of fact and fiction depending on who is telling the story.

That applies to any non-fictional or reference account given that they are created by mistake-prone humans. This is exactly my argument when it comes to what the Bible says. The question remains as to whether it is actually false or simply that we do not know one way or the other.

Quote:

Ahhh yes, I see. I agree that we cannot know one way or the other. But I also don't see that it matters. Because I cannot know for sure, I would say that I enjoy the stories.

Quote:

The added problem with the known sacred texts is that they are very old which adds further doubt to their accuracy.

No, it simply detracts from our confidence in the account. You are confusing accuracy with knowledge that something is true or that it exists.[/quote]

I know the Bible exists. I know the Koran exists. I know the Vedas exist. I know the Pali Canon, and the Mahayana Sutras exist. That's all I know. If I were to subscribe to them as the authority, I would be in belief land. I don't need to believe there was a man named Jesus or Moses to know that pricking you with a pin would hurt you and is not something I would like done to me. I simply don't understand the need for religion or belief systems of any kind when common sense could or ought to, prevail.

I simply don't understand the need for religion or belief systems of any kind when common sense could or ought to, prevail.

You can no more prove this statement than a believer can stating that their moral model should prevail. You're in the same position--you have a trust, conviction, and/or simple opinion that you are correct based on your personal experience alone. The only difference is, instead of subscribing to an ancient manuscript and/or religious establishment, you focus on the sensation of pain and strive to avoid it for no other reason than believing that you should.

I simply don't understand the need for religion or belief systems of any kind when common sense could or ought to, prevail.

You can no more prove this statement than a believer can stating that their moral model should prevail. You're in the same position--you have a trust, conviction, and/or simple opinion that you are correct based on your personal experience alone. The only difference is, instead of subscribing to an ancient manuscript and/or religious establishment, you focus on the sensation of pain and strive to avoid it for no other reason than believing that you should.

You don't have to wear the shoe. Regardless, it fits.

I am not attempting to prove anything at all. How can one prove an opinion. I would like common sense to prevail and i see that it does not. There is an overwhelming interest to see - very simply - what is. I have discovered that it is very difficult to see the simplicity of that when mind or brain is clouded with beliefs and concepts.

If I avoid pain then pain is avoided and if I don/t like pain then I guess I should avoid it. Whether I should or should not, the simple fact is that I do avoid it instinctively. I notice others avoid pain too. Avoiding most pain is clearly a natural instinct rather than a belief. There is no instead of. I don/t subscribe to religious beliefs and see through other commonly held, written-in-stone, this is the way it is kind of beliefs as well.

What I am saying is, I think, fairly simple. Maybe it is too simple! I wonder if our brains have been conditioned over millenia to expect complication where there is none.

I am not attempting to prove anything at all. How can one prove an opinion.

You cannot because opinion is a form of belief, no matter how true or incorrect it may be.

Quote:

I would like common sense to prevail and i see that it does not. There is an overwhelming interest to see - very simply - what is. I have discovered that it is very difficult to see the simplicity of that when mind or brain is clouded with beliefs and concepts.

That's because you lack focus.

Quote:

If I avoid pain then pain is avoided and if I don/t like pain then I guess I should avoid it. Whether I should or should not, the simple fact is that I do avoid it instinctively. I notice others avoid pain too. Avoiding most pain is clearly a natural instinct rather than a belief. There is no instead of. I don/t subscribe to religious beliefs and see through other commonly held, written-in-stone, this is the way it is kind of beliefs as well.

What I am saying is, I think, fairly simple. Maybe it is too simple! I wonder if our brains have been conditioned over millenia to expect complication where there is none.

Nothing like a little black/white thinking to make sense of it all, huh?